Invalidity dossier

US 8935785

IP prioritization and scoring system for DDoS detection and mitigation

Current assignee: Verisign Inc

Added 9/23/2026, 10:39:16 PM

At a glanceNo PTAB challengesNo litigation on file

Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash

Patent summary

Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.

✓ Generated

Patent Overview — US 8,935,785 B2

Title: IP prioritization and scoring system for DDoS detection and mitigation

Patent number: US 8,935,785 B2

Application number: US 13/243,714 (published as US 2012/0079592 A1)

Inventor: Ramakant Pandrangi

Assignee: Verisign Inc. (original assignee; assignment recorded to Verisign, Inc.)

Key dates (as listed in the source): Priority date 2010-09-24; filing date 2011-09-23; publication date 2015-01-13; legal status listed as Active, with adjusted expiration 2031-12-20. The source notes the legal status and dates are assumptions, not legal conclusions.

Purpose: The disclosure addresses Internet security, specifically detection, handling, and analysis of distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks. It observes that conventional mitigation relies on whitelists, blacklists, and packet inspection, which "does not allow much granularity in setting traffic policies." The described system instead applies thresholds gradually, using more granular information to decide which traffic to filter or allow.

Plain-language scope (from the supplied text): Embodiments gather information about client IP addresses from multiple sources before an attack to build a pre-attack knowledge base, analyze and correlate that information, and compute a variable confidence score for individual IP addresses. Sources may be weighted. Data may include historical and current data, comparisons between current and historically obtained services, and non-IP identifiers such as cookies and fingerprinting. Example sources include Netflow/SFlow information, blacklists of known malicious IP addresses, IP-to-location mapping, and connection counts and times. Threshold values define subsets of confidence-score ranges; traffic from an IP is processed according to where its score falls. The described methods limit network traffic based on confidence scores and thresholds, with a second threshold greater than a first; FIG. 3 illustrates prioritization from drop, to inspect, to rate limit, to queue. Figures 1–7 show normal operation, mitigation strategies, threshold use and adjustment, a system schematic, and a flowchart.

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8935785/en

What the excerpt does not establish: It is a partial excerpt and omits text (including the remainder of FIG. 3 and later description, and the full claims). It does not provide claim language, a complete list of references, prosecution details, or independent verification of dates, status, or assignee accuracy.

Generated 10/1/2026, 9:33:15 PM

Cases on file (0)

Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 8935785. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.

No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.

Litigation summary

Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Proceedings on file (0)

All PTAB activity →

AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.

No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.

PTAB challenges

AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Assignment history

Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Prior art

Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Obviousness

Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Extensions

Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Derivative works

Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.